Aineo,
What is "marriage for heterosexuals only," then, if not anti-gay discrimination? And what in the world would gaining equal marriage rights have to do with "satisfying my libido"? I don't see anything wrong with premarital sex... or whatever you call the equivalent when you <I>can't</I> ever get married. I want to change "centuries of tradition" because it's a <I>bad</I> tradition. It's nothing but "homosexual relationships are inherently inferior," codified into law. And I don't believe it.
So now it's "every <I>culture,</I>" instead of "every <I>religion.</I>" Well, that's one way to dodge the First Amendment - although I suspect you couldn't look me in the eye and tell me that this is <I>not</I> a religious issue for you.
Just out of curiousity, what do you call Canada? "Uncultured"?
When have I made an "attack against your faith"? Was it when I said I didn't believe in it, is <I>that</I> an "attack"? And when have I called you "parochial, close-minded, and homophobic"? -actually, I'm fairly sure I haven't called you, or anyone, any of the above. So what <I>exactly</I> have I done to warrant what looks to me like a veiled threat of banning... except disagreed with you?
You mention the government's responsibility to govern for the people, not special interests groups. But I <I>am</I> a person, and the "special interest group" I'm part of, they're people too. And all we want is to be able to live our lives like everyone else, because we <I>are</I> people like everyone else.
Let me ask you this: Were interracial couples "insecure in their self-identity" when they sought legal marriage rights? Many people found that offensive and unnatural, too... should they have refrained from redefining <I>their</I> social structure, in light of that?
What benefits do <I>we</I> get from marriage? Well, what benefits does <I>anyone</I> get from marriage? There are some, certainly, regardless of tax penalties. But if I love someone, if I know that this is the person I will love forever, and want to be with forever... will I want her to be "accepted and tolerated" by society as my "significant other"? No, I'll want what anyone would want... I'll want to marry her. Because it's a tradition, and a good tradition. Because marriage is something with significance - personally, culturally, and legally, it <I>means</I> something.
I can't imagine <I>not</I> wanting that. I can't imagine saying "well, those Christians and Muslims, they don't think I should be able to get married, so I guess I can't." Those Christians and Muslims, they do <I>not</I> lose any rights if I can get married. They don't lose anything but the illusion that this country's legal system is a mirror-perfect reflection of their religion's moral code. They are <I>not</I> personally affected if my side prevails -- but I am very much affected, if theirs does. So why does their "right to tradition" - a religiously-based tradition of inequality, at that - supercede my <I>right to get married like anyone else?</I>
That's not a rhetorical question.
More responses later.